Alperton Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff monitored people’s care and treatment and supported them to live healthier lives. At our last inspection in 2021, we did not assess this quality statement and a rating of good was carried forward from a previous assessment in 2019. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. There was a health and wellbeing coach who helped to support pre diabetic patients and leaders supported the coach to put in place templates and smart objectives to monitor and improve barriers to change.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. The practice worked closely with the social prescribing link worker to address patients at risk of health inequalities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The practice routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

The practice met some of the national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations and results that did not meet the target were slightly below. The practice was performing slightly below the national targets for the uptake of cervical screening, however the uptake was higher than some local practices within the area.

• The practice’s uptake of childhood immunisations for children aged 1 was 97%. For children aged 2 the practice achieved 96.5%, 89.5% and 96.5% across the three indicators.For children aged 5 the practice achieved 85.7%.
• Data highlighted that cervical screening uptake for women aged 24-49 was at 70.9%, and for women aged 50-64 was 76.2% compared to the 80% target. 

The practice explained that immunisation and cancer screening had historically been a problem due to the high deprivation level and cultural barriers. The practice evidenced that to address this they had put in place a robust call and re-call process, and the nurse continuously shared educational information with patients. The practice was involved in a local pilot project with the primary care network focussing on improving cervical screening uptake among hard to reach populations.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.